Did you vote for O because he wanted to escalate the Afghan war?

[Bragi]

This poll is in response to those here who constantly say anyone who voted for Obama voted in favor of his policy of escalating the war in Afghanistan.

[donco6]

1. All this kind of thing does is make me wonder-

why *did* I vote for Obama?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VMI Dem]

3. He was better than John McCain.

Which does not mean he was a good choice.

[sharp_stick]

4. I voted for him

simply because I knew it would enrage the tools that want to bring Nader to power while not giving us the insanity of mclame/palin.

[Moochy]

16. You are at the right site then!

Jousting against windmills like Nader is a favorite past time of many DU'ers.

[harun]

5. Depends what your definition of escalate is, and it isn't a "war".

[Bragi]

7. Nice try at obfuscation /nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. Here's a better try....

We've know since before the invasion of Iraq that the enemy was holed up in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan. We said before the invasion of Iraq that we were dividing our resources to engage in an unnecessary (and possibly even counter-productive) conflict in Iraq.

Obama said during the campaign - quite clearly and quite often - that his Administration would put an end to operations in Iraq as quickly as possible and concentrate our resources of fighting the enemy in Afghanistan. At one time, we had only 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. Just by way of comparison, there are more than 35,000 officers in the NYPD.

So if by "escalation" you mean actually putting enough resources on the ground to do the job, then I'd have to say that I voted for Obama BECAUSE he said he would escalate in Afghanistan.

[Bragi]

11. You wrote:

We said before the invasion of Iraq that we were dividing our resources to engage in an unnecessary (and possibly even counter-productive) conflict in Iraq.

If by "we" you mean the Congressional democrats, then I think you are absolutely correct.

Because they feared being branded and vilified by Bush as soft on terrorism, the Congressional dems were never comfortable with their opposition to the Iraq war, at least not until public opinion went so heavily against it.

So what they did was to claim that Afghanistan was a "good war" that they supported, while Iraq was a "bad war" that they opposed. That way, they hoped to insulate themselves from being accused of (God forbid!) being antiwar.

Obama foolishly bought into this "majority" Congressional meme when he got to Washington.

The Afghan war, however, was never, in fact, a "good war", except maybe in the first couple of weeks before OBL left the country. After that, this war had no clear objectives, and made no sense whatsoever. It still doesn't make any sense.

I think most people who voted for Obama knew that to be the case. they voted for him despite his Afghan escalation promise.

[harun]

20. It was an attempt at clarification.

We have never got clear answers to the following:

What is our objective(s) in Afghanistan?

a) Look for OBL?
b) Stop heroin trafficking?
c) Rebuild the country?
d) Destroy the taleban?
e) Work with the taleban to bring them in to the Afghan gov't?
f) Create a Western style Democracy?
g) Create an Egyption style (U.S. puppet, U.S. allowed oppression) "Democracy"?
h) Create a Pakistan style military dictatorship?
i) Political gain
j) Occupy Afghanistan indefinitely to pressure/keep eye on Iran?
k) Occupy Afghanistan to secure natural gas pipelines?

We have never got clear answers because the real objective is we are occupying the country for i) the political benefit it gives the politicians who decided to occupy it. They get tremendous support from the military industrial complex and the neo-con's for doing so. They also look to the populace to be responding to terrorism.

The real objective should only be:
c) Rebuild the country

The Afghan's supported us in the Cold War and we threw them under the bus after their country was destroyed. We should simply help them rebuild. This does not require a "war" or the interjection of more violence. Rebuild it like we did with Japan and Germany at the end of WWII. Other countries would help us do this. It's the speech Obama should have gave about Afghanistan instead of the war porn he demo'd for the neo-con's at at West Point.

[Jennicut]

6. I voted for him to take a smarter approach to everything Bush did.

I myself turned slowly against sending more troops to Afghanistan. I was neither for or against his policy at the time. I thought we had ignored Afghanistan. But the more I learned in 2009, the more I decided that it was not the best policy.
This question is kind of dumb anyways as what choice did people have at the time...Obama or the guy who wanted to bomb Iran into oblivion? It was kind of obvious who liberals and Dems would vote for if they didn't want to throw their vote away and allow a Repub into the WH again. Essentially it had not impact on my vote.

[Bragi]

8. I don't disagree the question is "kinda dumb" but...

Equally dumb is the idea frequently peddled here that because O (foolishly) said in the campaign that he wanted to escalate the Afghan war, that people who voted for him favored more war.

That's what prompted this poll. The result so far suggests that most people here voted for him DESPITE his promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

[Jennicut]

10. Yes, the idea is dumb. However, the point many are making is that

we all knew he wanted to escalate the war. There was no surprise in that. My biggest disappointment is that he did not listen to Biden, and surprisingly Rahm and maybe Jones on this. They wanted to de-escalate it. I don't trust Gates much and of course McCrystal. Obama is wrong on this. No amount of counter insurgency is going to work in a place like Afghanistan. It is even more complicated then Iraq.

[JoePhilly]

13. We have to get angry and act surprised that he's doing exactyl what he said he'd do.

That is the point of the poll.

[Bragi]

14. That's not the point at all

The point is to keep pro-war people from arguing that the escalation of the war is justified simply because Obama backed the congressional democratic consensus that the Afghan war was "a good war" and incorporated this false meme into his campaign.

If pro-war people want to argue that the war is justified, then I think they should do so by telling us why they feel it is justified. they should not simply rest their case on the false claim that Obama was given a real mandate by voters to escalate the war.

The poll here only shows what I think any poll on the subject would show: that most people who voted for Obama did so DESPITE his support for escalating the Afghan war, not because of it. He has no mandate on this.

[JoePhilly]

15. "Pro-war" people?

I think you mean most people "ON DU" voted for Obama "despite" his position in Afghanistan.

And supporting his position on Afghanistan is not "pro-war" ... but maybe that is the problem you have.

And ... who is "resting their case" for the war on his getting elected. I AGREE WITH HIS POSITION. I agreed with it BEFORE the election, I still agree with it.

My issue is with all the breathless angst which takes the form of ... "He's not doing what he said he'd do!!!" Its like some of you are SHOCKED that he's actually carrying forward on a topic he campaigned on.

And again .. if you think a poll on DU tells you what "most people" think, or support ... wow.

[Bragi]

17. You wrote:

I think you mean most people "ON DU" voted for Obama "despite" his position in Afghanistan.

Yes, but I also think that this would likely be the case for most people who voted for Obama.

(I'm prepared to be proven wrong. Anyone have any numbers on this?)

And supporting his position on Afghanistan is not "pro-war" ... but maybe that is the problem you have.

Noted. I should have said "pro-escalation of the war" I guess.

And ... who is "resting their case" for the war on his getting elected. I AGREE WITH HIS POSITION. I agreed with it BEFORE the election, I still agree with it.

I think you are among a minority of those who voted for Obama.

My issue is with all the breathless angst which takes the form of ... "He's not doing what he said he'd do!!!" Its like some of you are SHOCKED that he's actually carrying forward on a topic he campaigned on.

That isn't my view. I agree he is pursuing the policy of escalation he adopted when he got to Washington. I think it is the wrong policy and that few of his supporters supported it before, during or after the election.

And again .. if you think a poll on DU tells you what "most people" think, or support ... wow.

Don't think I ever said that. It is not my view that a DU poll reveals all. However, I think DU people are likely representative of Obama voters in general on this particular matter.

[JoePhilly]

19. Let's go back to the first line leading into the poll .....

This poll is in response to those here who constantly say anyone who voted for Obama voted in favor of his policy of escalating the war in Afghanistan.

No one has claimed that.

Then, you provided 3 ridiculous choices, and then used ~20 votes from DU folks to extrapolate to "most" Obama voters. Which is silly.

Again ... YOU started this poll because I challenged a person who seems totally shocked and dismayed that Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan.

And ... in all of this, you keep ignoring the Iraq part of that original thread ... do you agree with his withdrawal plan? Should the poster I challenged earlier be SHOCKED and dismayed about that?

You could try this ... do your poll again ... but this time ask if people voted for Obama because of his Iraq withdrawal plan ... framed it just as you did above.

[Bragi]

22. You wrote: "No one has claimed that."

What I see on DU is that whenever the subject of Obama's escalation of the war come up, posters immediately show up to point out that Obama was clear about this is the campaign, so why is anyone complaining now, they ask.

If the implication of the question is that no-one should be surprised by his escalation, then I think it is a relevant though limited point. (Personally, I was surprised he didn't find some way to politically finesse his unwise campaign promise, but that was back when I had a higher regard for his ability to engage in political finesse.)

If the point of raising the point about his campaign promise, however, is to suggest that his escalation reflects the mandate given to him by voters, then I disagree. Voters gave him no such mandate. They voted for him despite his unwise policy of escalating the war.

That was the sum total of my purpose in posting this poll.

As for the choices offered, I think they allow people to indicate where they stood on the matter of giving Obama a mandate to escalate the Afghan war.

[JoePhilly]

23. The SHOCK and DISMAY is THE key point!

If one does not like the policy, even though he's doing exactly what he said, that's fine.

Again ... go back to the thread from which your poll was spawned.

The person was utterly dismayed about BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq.

No one suggests that his election reflects a "mandiate" to escalate Afganistan. But no one should be surprised either ... its is what he said he'd do.

And you still don't want to touch IRAQ ... which was part of the original post I challenged. I suspect that if you re did your poll, but asked if folks voted for Obama based on his withdrawl plan, your results would be VERY different.

There simply is no reason for the breathless dismay.

[Bragi]

24. How about breath-y dismay?

I noted that it wasn't totally surprising, but it's still wrong. And that he had an alternative. And there was no mandate for the escalation. I find that dismaying, if not breathlessly so.

I'm not sure I understand your point on Iraq. If you treat the Iraq wind-down and the Afghan escalation as a single event, then I agree any responses would not be particularly meaningful. (If that's your point.)

[JoePhilly]

26. Haha ... I like that ...

So on Afghanistan ... that's fine, we could debate whether he should stick with his original position or not ... you disagree with him ... I agree with him.

On Iraq ... exactly. The post I responded to (the one which caused you to create this poll) treated them as a single event. And ... that post kicked off a bunch of "breathless whining".

And its that breathless whining that is driving me insane.

We on the left seem to be able to organize in only one way ... a circular firing squad.

And we seem to lack the patience required to microwave a pop-tart. Its been one year, and so many on the left are now in a tail-spin.

And the GOP loves it.

[Bragi]

27. I fear the worst

We are in danger of agreement.

Enough!

[JoePhilly]

12. Your poll is silly ... but I'll vote YES given your lame choices.

How many people voted for Obama for only one reason?

Within my vote for Obama, I agreed with his position on MANY things, including Afghanistan.

I guess you can cry all you want if you don't like his position, but its not like you did not know what he would do ...

AND ... AND ... AND ... if you go back to the original thread which spawned this silly poll .... the person attacking him is pissed because we aren't out of IRAQ yet as well .... which ignores that we are on track to do EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE'D DO AS A CANDIDATE.

Bitching that the guy is doing exactly what he said he'd do is weak and pathetic.

[amandabeech]

18. Now that it has been revealed that there are 100 Al Q in Afghanistan,

my enthusiasm for escalation has abated.

I don't like the Taleban, but so long as they are no longer harboring Al Q, I have no interest in fighting them. If we have to offer them gifts, fine.

We will not turn Afghanistan into a modern 20th century country, let alone a 21st century country until the Afgans ask for help in transforming themselves.

We cannot afford running around the world fighting anyone we don't like or who did us wrong years ago.

I don't understand why a smart guy like Obama wants to do this. Surely he knew the Al Q count before he ordered the escalation.

[cliffordu]

21. I voted for him because I like idiotic polls like this one.

[NorthCarolina]

25. I voted for Obama because I was presented with little choice.

My preferred candidate, Kucinich, had been successfully shut-down by the conservative aligned media before North Carolina even held their primaries. Therefore, the national election boiled down to what I perceived to be the lesser of two evils. Nothing more, nothing less.